RAPID TRANSIT. 
 
 REVIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 
 
 OK 
 
 \u y\\mm\ |)orietg of |;tiH fiight^r 
 
 ON 
 
 RAPID TRANSIT. 
 
 BY 
 
 RK'HARD P. MORGAN, Jr.. ( '. E. 
 
 AND 
 
 LETTER OF JULIUS W. ADAMS, C.E 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 LANGE, LITTLE & CO., PRINTERS, 
 
 108, 110, 112 & 114 Woostek St. 
 1875. 
 
i£x Safaris 
 
 SEYMOUR DURST 
 
 "t ' 'Fort nieuw ^Am^ierda^ oj> Je Manha-tans 
 
 FORT NEW AMSTERDAM- 
 
 (NEW YORK), 1651. 
 
 "When you leave, please leave this book 
 
 Because it has been said 
 " Ever thing comes t' him who waits 
 
 Except a loaned book." 
 
 V 1 
 
 7 1 
 
 Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library 
 Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old York Library 
 
RAPID TRANSIT 
 
 REVIEW OF REPORT OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 St. Nicholas Hotel, ) 
 New York, Feb. 27, 1875. \ 
 
 Julius AY. Adams, Esq., 
 
 President of the American Society of Oivil 
 
 Engineers. 
 
 Sir : — I have examined a copy of the report of 
 Messrs. O. Chanute, M. N. Forney, Asbel Welch, 
 Chas. K. Graham, and F. Collingwood, a committee 
 appointed by your Society on the 3d of September 
 last, to consider and recommend plans for the best 
 means of rapid transit for passengers, etc., in the 
 City of New York — which report was read to the 
 Society on the 3d day of February, inst., and given 
 to the public through the press on the 18th inst.* 
 
 *Gen. J. G. Barnard, one of the original Committee, early in- 
 formed me that he only acted on the Committee at some of the 
 sittings when plans were being received, and should not par- 
 ticipate in the preparation of the report. 
 1 
 
Although I am not a member of your Society, 
 yet, inasmuch as in compliance with its invitation 
 by circular, issued on the 15th day of September, 
 1874, I had the honor to submit a communication 
 on the subject of rapid transit for passengers in the 
 City of Xew York, together with detailed plans of 
 the structure which I propose, and diagrams with 
 full calculations of strains, etc., accompanied with 
 estimates of cost, and certain general suggestions 
 relating to the comparative value of the various 
 methods heretofore offered for the solution of the 
 problem of rapid transit of persons; I therefore 
 take the liberty of submitting certain views in 
 regard to the report of your Committee, which 
 seem to me worthy of consideration by the Society. 
 
 One inducement to act upon the invitation of the 
 Society, was the suggestion in its resolutions and 
 circular, that the best general plan of rapid transit 
 for passengers, would be recommended by the Com- 
 mittee, and that due credit was to be given to all 
 those who might in their communications present 
 plans and make valuable su^o'estions. 
 
 Believing as I did, and still do, that the Society 
 in its final action would endeavor to do justice, and 
 a public service, and would recommend for adoption 
 what seemed the best plan presented, I unhesitat- 
 ingly offered my plans and communication for its 
 consideration. The office of the Committee, as I 
 understand it, was quasi judicial — to receive and 
 consider the various j)lans which might be proposed, 
 and to recommend that from among them, which 
 seemed best adapted to secure the result desired. 
 
 The general conclusions of the Committee in 
 
3 
 
 regard to the comparative merits of the three classes 
 of roads brought forward— designated as the Under- 
 ground, Depressed, and Elevated railroad systems — 
 meet my fullest concurrence. 
 
 My professional attention was especially directed 
 to this subject by the report of the X. Y. Senate 
 Special Commission in January, 1867. 
 
 In considering the question, I early came to the 
 conclusion that the proposed plans for Underground 
 or Depressed (through the blocks) roads, were im- 
 practicable ; and in a report published by myself in 
 1869, a copy of which was presented to your Com- 
 mittee with my communication, stated my reasons 
 for that conclusion. The rej>ort of your Committee 
 concurs with the views which I then expressed as 
 to the objections to those two methods of construc- 
 tion, and has to a considerable extent adopted the 
 language which I then employed. 
 
 Further reflection has confirmed my belief in the 
 correctness of the opinions which I then entertained, 
 as to the comparative merits of the three systems 
 proposed, and I am happy to find that those views 
 have been indorsed by your Committee, both as 
 regards the structure, the power, and rolling-stock 
 proposed, as well as the method of operating the same. 
 
 Having reached this result, it only remained to 
 consider whether any plan for an elevated road 
 could be devised, which would meet the necessary 
 conditions of the problem, viz., safety, efficiency, 
 economy of construction, and the least practicable 
 interference with existing vested interests ; and also 
 as a whole, presenting a system adapted to not only 
 the present, but the great future of New York. 
 
4 
 
 These considerations were the basis of my action 
 in the preparation of plans adapted to the existing 
 streets and avenues, as set forth in my former re- 
 ports, and recent communication to your society. 
 Those plans having been approved by many of the 
 most distinguished civil engineers of this country, 
 and having met your own cordial endorsement as 
 " entirely filling the conditions," I was led to hope 
 that the problem which had so long occupied public 
 attention had been substantially solved, and that 
 your committee would so " recommend," and give 
 me " due credit." 
 
 In their report the Committee state, on page 18, 
 that upon the avenues " there are two possible loca- 
 tions for an elevated road ; either the tracks may be 
 close together over the centre of the roadway, or 
 they may be independent tracks, one on each side of 
 • the street." They also observe in regard to the 
 avenues, that in them is found the great obstacle to 
 cheap rapid transit, because " their great width, 60 
 feet between curbs, adds enormously to the cost of 
 constructing a road over the center of the street, if 
 support must be taken at the curb stone." But if 
 roads shall be constructed upon that plan, the Com- 
 mittee say, that the best seems to be that which I 
 have had the honor to present. 
 
 My estimate of the cost of a road adapted to the 
 transportation of passengers only, as carefully re- 
 vised to suit the present prices of iron and labor, is 
 $486,000 per mile of double track road. This in- 
 cludes the cost of foundations, stations at half mile 
 distances on each side, and all other expenses ex- 
 cept the right of way and rolling stock. The right 
 
5 
 
 of way, on the lines of streets, it is anticipated, in- 
 asmuch as it already belongs to the public, will cost 
 nothing. To this there may be an occasional excep- 
 tion in crossing from the line of one street to an- 
 other, through blocks. The earlier estimate of cost 
 for a passenger road, submitted by me, of $520,000 
 per mile, was made at a time -before the present low 
 prices of iron and labor. 
 
 Though it is not distinctly stated in the report of 
 the Committee, yet I find, greatly to my surprise, 
 that the plan of supporting a double track railway 
 over the centre of the carriage-way, by placing the 
 supporting columns in the road-way of the street, 
 between the curbs, seems to be favored by them. 
 They say in their report, page 20, that " The argu- 
 ment in favor of placing posts in the road- way to 
 carrv an elevated road over the centre of an avenue 
 is the single one of economv ; as it will cost twice 
 as much, if the support is taken from the edge of 
 the curb, as it will if the posts are placed in the car- 
 riage-way." Again, on page 28, they say. " A re- 
 quirement that the tracks should be over the centre 
 of the street, and bearing be taken from the edge 
 of the side-walk would more than double the ex- 
 pense." 
 
 In these statements of comparative expense, the 
 Committee are greatly mistaken. The cost of equiv- 
 alent roads with equal length of spans along the 
 streets or avenues, may be divided into four parts 
 — three of which are substantially constant, and one 
 only, is variable. 
 
 The cost of the foundations which carry the super- 
 structure, at distances suggested by the Committee, 
 
6 
 
 50 feet, page 20, would be practically the same in 
 either case whether constructed near the centre of 
 the carriage-way or at the curb-stone. 
 
 In passing it may, however, be remarked, that the 
 interference with the use of the street while con- 
 structing foundations in the carriage-way near its 
 centre, will be very much greater than if they are 
 at the sidewalk, and that the risk of injury to sew- 
 ers, gas and water mains, by excavations in the mid- 
 dle of the street will be considerable, and will not 
 exist by excavations at the sidewalks. 
 
 Likewise the longitudial trusses and structure to 
 carry the tracks would cost the same. The stations, 
 apj)roaches and platforms, are exactly alike in cost, 
 when equal in number and capacity. This leaves the 
 fourth element only, variable as above suggested? 
 viz.: the transverse frame which supjDorts the rail- 
 Avay : — and the difference in cost stated by the Com 
 mittee must be found in this element. 
 
 The Committee referring to a road supported on 
 posts in the carriageway say on page 21, that " a 
 double track road can be built for $300,000 per 
 mile on an assumed rolling load of 1,200 lbs. per 
 lineal foot of track, exclusive of stations or equip- 
 ment." As no data are given in their report from 
 which this result is reached, I am unable to test its 
 correctness by any direct calculation. It is sufficient 
 however, to say that after deducting from their as- 
 sumed cost, the cost of foundations, roadway, and 
 longitudinal trusses, as estimated in my communica- 
 tion, it leaves almost no residuum to cover the cost 
 of the transverse frames which support the track 
 and longitudinal structure. Whatever difference 
 
7 
 
 therefore, may exist in the whole cost of the struc- 
 tures, must be found in the different cost of the 
 transverse frames. Referring as a comparison to my 
 estimate of the cost of a road competent to sustain 
 a rolling load of 2,000 lbs. per lineal foot on each 
 track, appended to my communication, it will be 
 seen, that the cost of the transverse frames in one 
 section, 75 feet, is $3,960 each, while the total cost 
 of the span, including foundations, longitudinal work, 
 proportion of stations and entrance-ways, engineer- 
 ing and contingencies, is $11,947.76. The cost there- 
 fore, of the transverse frames, is a very little less 
 than one-third of the total cost of the road. 
 
 The difference in the cost of the transverse frames 
 constructed upon the plan which I propose to span 
 a street of 50 feet carriage way, or one of 60 feet, 
 instead of being " enormous," as the Committee state, 
 even when applied to the frames themselves, and 
 not to the total cost of the road, is but slight. I 
 have already shown that the difference in widths of 
 streets has no appreciable effect upon the cost of 
 any portion of equivalent elevated roads, except the 
 transverse supports to the longitudinal work. If the 
 frames constructed on my plan shall be widened so 
 as to span a 60 feet carriage way, instead of one 
 narrower, say 46 feet, the necessary change will be 
 only the lengthening and slightly increased strength 
 of the interior connections between the supporting 
 ribs; and the difference in cost, therefore, cannot but 
 be slight. Whatever the width of the street may be, 
 the cost of all but the transverse frames remains un- 
 changed ; and, therefore, the statements of the Com- 
 mittee, p. 18, that the additional width of the street 
 
8 
 
 " adds enormously to the cost of constructing a 
 road," or that, p. 20, " it will cost twice as much if 
 the support is taken from the edge of the curb as it 
 will if the posts are placed in the carriage way," or 
 that, p. 28, "a requirement that the tracks should 
 be over the centre of the street, and "bearing be taken 
 from the edge of the sidewalk, would more than 
 double the expense," are extravagant, and entirely 
 unwarranted by the truth. 
 
 But it is evident from what has just been said 
 that the difference in the cost of these transverse 
 frames cannot be so great as to reconcile the dis- 
 crepancy between the estimate of the Committee 
 and my own, as to the total cost of the road, nor 
 justify their extravagant language page 18, that the 
 width of the avenues " adds enormously to the cost 
 of constructing a road over the centre of the street 
 if support must be taken at the curbstone." 
 
 In view of the foregoing facts, and having several 
 years since made approximate estimates of the cost 
 of the plan suggested by your Committee, I am con- 
 vinced that they have greatly exaggerated the dif- 
 ference between the cost of the plans under consid- 
 eration. 
 
 I desire to call your attention to a surprising in- 
 consistency, contained in the report of your Commit- 
 tee, when comparing the probable ]3ecuniary value 
 of a road constructed upon my plan, and the value 
 of a road constructed upon any plan. On page 19 
 of their report the Committee say, in reference to 
 my plan costing $486,000 per mile, "if the estimates 
 of revenue and operating expenses made by your 
 Committee are correct, there is but one line which 
 
9 
 
 can afford to adopt such a plan and yet, on p. 33, 
 in summing up the result of their estimated sources 
 of revenue, and all the plans and schemes submitted 
 to them — 75 in all — the Committee says it has 
 reached five conclusions, the first of which is in these 
 words : 
 
 " 1st. In order to be profitable with the fares and 
 volume of business likely to be obtained, double 
 tracked rapid transit roads should not be planned 
 to cost, fully equipped, much, if any, more than from 
 $700,000 to $1,125,000 per mile, according to loca- 
 tion ; and this points to some form of elevated 
 railroad as the leading; feature of the design to be 
 recommended." 
 
 Why it is that a line of road which is to cost 
 $486,000 per mile, can be profitable only upon " one 
 route 7 iu this city, when the Committee state as a 
 general result of their investigations, that roads 
 costing from $700,000 to $1,125,000 per mile may 
 be expected to be profitable, I leave to them to ex- 
 plain. True, in the former estimate the cost of 
 equipment is not included ; but the Committee esti- 
 mate the cost of stations and equipment for the 
 greatest business contemplated by them, viz., 35,000,- 
 000 passengers annually, at $225,000 per mile. In 
 my estimate stations are included at $40,000 j>er mile, 
 leaving, therefore, to be added to $186,000, $185,- 
 000 per mile for equipment, making the aggregate 
 cost of the road, stations and equipment, $671,000 
 per mile, or less than the minimum cost estimated 
 by the Committee for a profitable line. I ask 
 again, how can the Committee justify themselves in 
 
10 
 
 saying that " there is but one line which can afford 
 to adopt such a plan." 
 
 The Committee having reached the conclusion that 
 the only practicable plan for rapid transit, p. 33, 
 "points to some form of elevated railroad as the 
 leading feature of the design to be recommended," 
 seem to indicate that the road should be supported 
 by posts placed near the middle of the carriage-way 
 of the street. They have assumed that a road so 
 constructed would be much more economical than 
 any other, costing less than half, etc, pp. 20, 28. 
 The great inaccuracy of this assumption appears by 
 what has already been said. 
 
 The objections to the support of an elevated road 
 by placing posts in the carriage-way of the streets, I 
 have considered on pp. 14, 15 and 16 of my original 
 communication, to which I respectfully refer you, 
 without repeating what I then said. These objec- 
 tions are somewhat reduced by the suggestion of 
 your Committee, p. 20 of their report, that the sup- 
 ports should be placed at intervals of about 50 feet 
 instead of 16 feet as originally proposed. The greater 
 distance between the supports, however, increases the 
 cost of the structure by the additional strength re- 
 quired in the supports themselves, and especially in 
 the longitudinal part of the road. The suggestion 
 of the Committee on p. 21, that a police regulation 
 requiring that vehicles proceeding rapidly should 
 hug the line of the posts, and that those proceeding 
 slowly, should hug the side-walk, recognizes the 
 difficulty which such a structure would occasion in 
 the ordinary use of the street. Without intending 
 
 • 
 
11 
 
 any disrespect to the Committee, I may be permitted 
 to express my doubt, whether a police regulation 
 which seeks to divide the street traffic of a great 
 city into two parts, one like a funeral procession go- 
 ing slowly to the cemetery, and the other hastening 
 on its return, can be enforced, or would prove in the 
 slightest decree useful. 
 
 Whatever plan may be adopted for rapid transit, 
 must be one looking to the future, as well as to 
 the present ; and the structure should be one which 
 will be permanent. 
 
 I do not believe that the suggestion of the Com- 
 mittee on p. 20 of the report, that in portions of 
 streets where "the traffic is now, and is likely to con- 
 tinue so small, and the adjoining buildings are of so 
 poor a character, that if the spans be made about 
 50 feet, posts within the roadway are not likely to 
 prove- a serious annoyance," is well founded. If the 
 traffic is as small as indicated, no rapid transit 
 road is required, unless it is likely to increase when 
 rapid communication is provided. In that case, the 
 structure should, in the first instance, be such as to 
 encourage and facilitate the expected increase. 
 
 The Committee seem to act upon the supposition 
 that those avenues where the surface traffic, p. 20, u is 
 so large, or the property so valuable, that support must 
 be taken at the sidewalk," are the only ones to which 
 that condition will ever apply. The very object of 
 constructing lines of rapid transit to the upper part 
 of the city, is to furnish facilities for its occupation, 
 and to concentrate there a dense population, requir- 
 ing streets as free from obstruction, as those which 
 
12 
 
 the Committee state have so large a surface traffic, 
 that support for an elevated road must be taken from 
 the sidewalk. 
 
 The design therefore which shall be adopted should 
 meet that necessity, and should not be one tempor- 
 ary in its character ; to be changed only after a long 
 interference with public convenience. It seems clear 
 that a due regard for the future of New York, 
 would forbid the adoption of the suggested plan of 
 your Committee. 
 
 The confidence which I expressed in my original 
 communication, in the ability and desire of your 
 society to determine justly upon the various plans 
 proposed for rapid transit in Xew York, and which I 
 still entertain, has induced me to present to you this 
 review of the report of your Committee. I have 
 confined myself in what has been said, to a review 
 of so much of that report as relates to the transit 
 of persons by a system of elevated roads constructed 
 along the lines of existing streets. 
 
 Some of the inconsi>tencies of that report, and the 
 grave errors into which the Committee have fallen, 
 it has been attempted to show from the language of 
 the report itself, as before quoted. That such er- 
 rors exist seems evident, and that the report of the 
 Committee does serious injustice to the plan of road 
 proposed by myself, and fails to fulfill public expec- 
 tion as to the effect of the action of your Society 
 on this great subject, is certain. Whether your 
 Society will deem it wise to pursue the topic further, 
 and announce its views as to the best plan of roads 
 for rapid transit in cities, and so furnish the guide 
 
13 
 
 to public action, which the position of the Society 
 justifies, and which has been so generally expected, 
 it alone can determine. 
 
 Very respectfully, etc., 
 
 RICHARD P. MORGAN, Je., 
 
 Civil Engineer. 
 
14 
 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., March 1, 1875. 
 
 Richard P. Morgan, Jr., Esq., 
 
 Dear Sir, — Your favor of the 27th inst., com- 
 menting upon the report of the Committee on rapid 
 transit, etc., of the American Society of Civil En- 
 gineers is received. 
 
 I will communicate the same to the Society, as 
 you request. 
 
 I have examined it with interest, and concur with 
 the conclusions which you state. As I wrote to 
 you before, your plan seemed to me, when I ex- 
 amined it, to fulfill the conditions required to furnish 
 rapid transit in great cities. I am still firm in that 
 opinion, and fully believe that your structure, with 
 occasional modifications as you have indicated, to 
 meet exceptional conditions, is the best which has 
 been presented. 
 
 Its stability, efficiency, economy, tasteful form and 
 facility of construction, all unite to recommend it to 
 public favor; and in these respects combined, it 
 possesses merits which no other plan yet suggested 
 does, and which, I doubt not, will in practice, if it 
 shall be constructed, satisfy fully all the expectations 
 of its friends and the public. 
 
 You are at liberty to make such use of this letter 
 as you may see fit. 
 
 Very respectfully, etc., 
 
 JULIUS W. ADAMS, 
 
 Civil Engineer. 
 
AvfKY 
 IMM 
 
 . 1